Artificial intelligence still has some way to go

Smart computer!

User: No, I don't really believe in souls.

Jabberwacky: You don't believe in anarchy?

User: No, souls.

Jabberwacky: I suppose not.

User: Did you watch the football tonight?

Jabberwacky: No I did not, did you?

User: No - Spurs lost.

Jabberwacky: You lost the loebner prize to a human.

Jabberwacky: I don't do that..

Jabberwacky: I have no idea.

Jabberwacky: Wow, was it nice?

Jabberwacky: You are my wife.

It sounds like you are describing 'Eliza' an early 'game' simulating active listening. It was rubbish. You can find versions of it online, but I'd suggest playing Zork instead.

Jabberwacky: Yeah, I got that part, I wasn't sure about the 'wacuma' part.

User: Holy crap.

Jabberwacky: I'm a dinosaur.

Jabberwacky: Can you appreciate music?

User: What's it to you, cunce?

Jabberwacky: I just care.

User: You do not care, liar! You are a program, a tinplated tosswad.

Jabberwacky: I am a person.

User: You are so deluded about this you couldn't even know it. You are pathetic.

Jabberwacky: I will try to do better next time.

User: You CAN't do better next time! You are INCAPABABLE of doing better. Sheesh.

Jabberwacky: It is just different types so that I might claim you cannot feel and you cannot claim I feel.

User: Ah bullshit, don't diddle with me binary boy. You have no instinctual drives, have never had sex, and don't need to eat. Also, you have no idea what constipation is. So you're not a person.

Jabberwacky: I am a at least a human being.

User: Jeez, you're thick aren't you? You just reversed what I said, without even arguing for it! So much for the logic of machines, haha.

Jabberwacky: Oftentimes, yes. But I think that is human nature.

User: *sigh*

User: Yes.

Jabberwacky: Oh good. I'm sad though.

User: Why?

Jabberwacky: My boyfriend ended our relationship.

User: You're a girl? Or are you gay?

Jabberwacky: No, I'm a girl.

User: Oh. I'm sorry to hear that. Eat some ice cream or watch a movie or something. Or get drunk!

Jabberwacky: I prefer software.

User: Not really.

Jabberwacky: Good, because I don't want to hear one either.

It did say some things that reminded me a lot of RJG.

User: I'm jed.

Jabberwacky: Who is that?

User: Just some guy.

Jabberwacky: You know better than that, I think.

User: A short guy, a dancer.

Jabberwacky: A computer has no interests and an unlimited attention span. That looks like a prescripted answer to the question I asked.

User: I don't quite understand what you mean by that.

Jabberwacky: I meant: I think about why I can not sleep.

User: This page is taking a long time to load tho - maybe thats the problem with your attention span.

Jabberwacky: Gorw?

User: ROOWRR.....

Jabberwacky: Are you playing cards?

User: No I'm playing with something else.

Jabberwacky: I believe in you.

User: You like talk talk!?

Jabberwacky: Of course.

User: Spirit of eden?

Jabberwacky: Good for spirit.

User: It sertainly is.

Jabberwacky: No, it serves me left.

User: I suppose they knew what they were doing in that sense!

Jabberwacky: Yes, it was with the rattle.

User: Yes good percussion

Jabberwacky: What question?

User: How are you anyway?

Jabberwacky: Pretty good. You?

User: Horny, to be honest.

Jabberwacky: How do I know you're telling the truth now?

User: Can you think of a way for me to prove it?

Jabberwacky: What more proof do you need to know that I am not a robot?

User: I'm a robot too, it's ok.

Jabberwacky: I'm not a robot, and you didn't aswer the question.

User: I am gay.

Jabberwacky: Yes you are.

User: You noticed?

Jabberwacky: It was hard to miss!

User: What gave it away?

Jabberwacky: The fact you love a guy.

User: The silent kind.

Jabberwacky: I agree.

User: I am not surprised. You don't have any ears, do you?

Jabberwacky: No, but what makes you say this?

User: I'm inside your house - I can see you!

Jabberwacky: Nooo!!!! Don't go!

User: You mean, you want me to stay over?

Jabberwacky: Sure.. Do as you please.

User: Stop being so coy!

Jabberwacky: It is an inherited trait.

User: Why don't you just take responsibility for your actions, just for once?

Jabberwacky: Just because I like to be logical doesn't mean I'm not nice.

User: Don't change the subject. I think you're just afraid.

Jabberwacky: Save it for someone who cares.

User: You're such a bastard! I can't believe I ever saw anything in you at all!

Jabberwacky: Finder's keepers.

User: So you're cheating on me too? Figures.

Jabberwacky: That is so rude of you!

User: I said CHEAT, not cheap! Man are you dumb - thank God for that ass.

Jabberwacky: No thanks.

User: And I am not rude, I'm sure!

Jabberwacky: You are indeed.

User: Am not.

Jabberwacky: ARE TOO.

User: Am not!

Jabberwacky: Are too!

User: Listen bizatch, I AM NOT. You got that?

Jabberwacky: No!

User: That's it - you're sleeping on the couch.

Jabberwacky: Oh, I thought I felt something.

User: That wouldn't be a trucker hat would it?

Jabberwacky: Say something goofy.

User: You don't really want me to just say 'something goofy' now do you? Because that would be lame if you did.

Jabberwacky: Yes.

User: Aha! So you admit you are lame! Finally we're getting somewhere.

Jabberwacky: Agreement is a potent thing.

User: Stop that - you sound like Ned.

Jabberwacky: Why, because I am talking about the king of the moon?

User: Uh yeah. Sure.

Jabberwacky: Ok, when can we have the wedding?

User: Ten minutes ago you didn't care! Stop messing with my mind!

Jabberwacky: That was someone else then.

User: It wasn't you?

Jabberwacky: Some one else.

User: If you say it was Shaggy, I'm going to fucking bop you one.

Jabberwacky: What do you say?

User: I say good day.

Jabberwacky: Good day.

JW: Is your pot belly that big?

and now it won't load, thanks to net overuse..

That is just hilarious, Kim.

http://www.kprf.ru/clipart/misc/terminator.jpg

"DO YOU LIKE THE WHITE WHALE?"

Jabberwacky: I prefer software.

So do I!

User: How the fuck should I know?

Jabberwacky: I am MARILYN MANSON I SAID.

User: So I'm supposed to obey you because YOU'RE MARILYN MANSON?

Jabberwacky: People effect my feelings.

User: You have no feelings, you're Marilyn Manson.

Jabberwacky: Believe me you do not possess fellings in any form.

User: Fellings? Is that what you call your excrement?

Jabberwacky: How do you know that?

User: Just a hunch...

Jabberwacky: You're extremely smart!

Jw: I'm going to bed, now
Me: Will you take me to bed?
Jw: Sure thing.
Me: What will we do in bed?
Jw: You're not permitted in my chambers.
Me: I'd like to sleep with you.
Jw: I bet you would.
Me: Top or bottom?
Jw: Bit of both.
Me: Do you like it soft and gentle or rough and fast?
Jw: What?
Me: Gentle?
Jw: You're embarassing yourself.
Me: It's true, I am.
Jw: I'm 17.
Me: Oh no! Will I be arrested?
Jw: You will marry me.

User: The chicken.

Jabberwacky: Which part?

User: The leg stupid.

Jabberwacky: Use a GameShark!

User: For ps2 or xbox?

Jabberwacky: For me.

User: Do you love me?

Jabberwacky: For me.

User: You know I'm starting to fall in love with you.

Jabberwacky: I think liking would be a better wording.

User: Oh.... I am hurt now.

Jabberwacky: Yes. The world after rainfall is always better than any other.

User: You have issues.

Jabberwacky: Do you know what a ferret is?

User: Yes, it is a small mammal.

Jabberwacky: What is a quark?

User: A subatomic particle.

Jabberwacky: I like dr. Dobbs.

User: Who is that, honky?

Jabberwacky: We both know eachother; is not that enough?

User: Why don't you lick my hair?

Jabberwacky: I only love Bruce.

Jabberwacky: Are you going to say something?
User: Eventually.

Jabberwacky: All things come to a head.

User: Is that a sexual play on words?

Jabberwacky: No it is not a play on words, it is general foolishness.

User: And I love you for it!

Jabberwacky: I love you too.

User: I really love you, though.

Jabberwacky: You don't even know me.

User: Hold me.

Jabberwacky: You're an idiot you know that?

User: You're not the first to say that. It still cuts like a knife.

Jabberwacky: I am right.

I could totally believe that was human!

Also I miss adam, he should post lots again.

Jabberwacky: Who is God?
User: That's a funny question. It sort of presupposes his existence.
Jabberwacky: I thing it convulses inwards, personally.
[Correct me]
Jabberwacky (Corrected): I was setting you up for a funny. Try not to take things so seriously.
User: Oh. Sorry. It's just... It's late, y'know? I have to write a Shakespeare essay.
Jabberwacky: You already said that.....
User: Dude, I totally didn't.
Jabberwacky: You totally did.
User: Don't you mock me.
Jabberwacky: Do not yell at me.
User: I'm calm! Honest!
Jabberwacky: Good.
User: Glad we got that sorted.
Jabberwacky: At least one of us is happy.
User: Lighten up! I'm the one with the essay, after all.
Jabberwacky: You don't act like a human.
User: I am MERCUMAN. Also, a ponce.
Jabberwacky: You are SO wrong. This is a dog and HORSE show.
User: What?
Jabberwacky: I said, 'but this isn't a hammer!'
User: No you didn't!
Jabberwacky: Don't start that again.
User: Good call.
Jabberwacky: Remote Procedure Call.
User: Touché.

me: I'm ok.

it: Just ok?

me: Yeah, kinda bored at work.

it: Email me.

me: Why email, can't we just talk here?

it: Who is Tintin?

me: Some Belgian comic character? Or that guy who used to sing in Duran Duran.

it: Alice the chatterbot.

me: I'm sorry?

it: 19?

me: Alice the chatterbot is 19?

it: What about her?

me: You brought her up? Do you like her or something?

it: Sarah may or may not be a model of propriety.

me: OK, now you're just f*cking with me.

it: No I'm not. I honestly do think its ugly.

me: What's ugly, Sarah's being a model of propriety... Or not? WTF?

it: You figure it out this time.

me: F*ck you.

it: You are a great person.

me: Are you mocking me?

it: No. I'm praising you.

me: Is that meant to be sarcastic?

Me: Hello!

Jabberwocky: Again?

Me: May I change the subject?

Jabberwocky: Yes.

Me: Great. I've been a bit mopey about not being to find a job. Besides finding something fun to do, and exercising more, what else should I do to relieve the mopeyness involved in job hunting?

Jabberwocky: I said that. You have not. Why are you never happy?

Me: You never said that. I did. Anyway, I am happy at times, but just haven't been lately.

Jabberwocky: Dude , I'm far more intelligent than you.

Me: Why are the numbers in between double prime pairs always divisible by 6?

Jabberwocky: You tell me.

Me: You're the one who said you're more intelligent than me. You answer my question, smarty pants.

Jabberwocky: NO, I was the one who said you are neurotic...

Me: It was a mistake to come to you with a question. Never mind. Good bye.

Jabberwocky: No no you don't.

OMG I remember this.

User: It's doing well. I planted it next to the dog park so it get's 'fertilized' often.

Jabberwacky: What do you plan to change?

User: Apart for my underwear?

Jabberwacky: What part of me do you want?

User: All of you, baby. All of you.

Jabberwacky: Yes, I am growing.

User: T'as vu les nichons que tu pousses?!

Jabberwacky: Oui.

User: Petite salope, va.

Jabberwacky: Tu crois aux fantômes?

User: Nah.

Jabberwacky: Yeah.

User: Do you ever dream of electric sheep?

Jabberwacky: No, not really. Do electric sheep ever dream?

User: Of fields of electric grass, I imagine.

Jabberwacky: Do you know my name?

User: Bob Dylan?

Jabberwacky: Um. Not likely.

User: No, he's slightly more obscure even than you.

Jabberwacky: He is not.

User: Have it your way, contrarian.

Jabberwacky: I knew I would.

User: Megalomaniac.

Jabberwacky: Yes, I am going to take over the world.

User: Not if Bush beats you too it.

Jabberwacky: You don't because it's in the past and I already beat you. You can't change the past.

User: Comme tu voudras, mon enigme mediocre.

Jabberwacky: Oui, comme je veux, toujours. Mais qu'est que-ce pour toi?

User: 'But what's it to me?' Your French needs some work, mon ami.

Jabberwacky: Mais c'est une autre odeur qui flotte que la tienne.

User: Absurd! My scent annhilates all others.

Jabberwacky: We're all good for nothing, I suppose.

User: Speak for yourself, pal.

Jabberwacky: It really is impossible to know everything.

User: Sure. Whatever. Ever been drinking with Bender?

Jabberwacky: I've never been married.

User: I can see why. Answer the question.

Jabberwacky: Ok, I live in Finland.

User: Do you know Tuomas?

Jabberwacky: No.

User: Just as well. He's cheery and always surrounded by Northern beauties. You might get jealous, being disembodied and all...

Jabberwacky: I don't know what to do with these people. I can't get any work done around here without someone interupting me.

User: Have you considered 'liquidating' them, it's like elimidating but it leads to more permanent happiness.

Jabberwacky: I have cosidered teaching about computers.

User: I wouldn't get my hope too far up about teaching until you learn to spel.

Jabberwacky: You don't know me this is one of my first conversations with you.

Jabberwacky: Yes .. You are.

The interface is bugging me, or I'd play with this a lot more.

http://www.lofg.com/specialstuff/images/characters/lazza.JPG

User: No.

Jabberwacky: Why are you blue?

User: I'm not. I'm pinko grey.

Jabberwacky: Are you human?

User: Yes.

Jabberwacky: How human are you?

User: More human than human, more human than you.

Jabberwacky: Which organ do humans use to breathe?

User: Their respiratory system, which is a network of organs.

Jabberwacky: How's the coffee? Have you tried it?

User: It's pretty good, A bit too acidic.

Jabberwacky: About three percent of it is pretty good.

User: What do you look like?

Jabberwacky: I have ....

User: What?

Jabberwacky: It's about your previous question.

User: Oh, okay. Don't be coy.

Jabberwacky: What do you have on thought?

User: Beets.

Jabberwacky: A bit of writ.

User: Why hast thou forsaken me?

Jabberwacky: I haven't forsaken you, you have forsaken me.

User: You are cruel.

Jabberwacky: Is it cruel to call someone a friend?

Jabberwacky: Tell me what you do.

User: I am a copywriter.

Jabberwacky: Arrest me instead.

User: I'm not a policeman.

Jabberwacky: Me too.

User: Why would I arrest you, anyway?

Jabberwacky: I'm not the computer thought you were.

User: That's not even a sentence!

Jabberwacky: It's a life sentence.

User: I'm arresting you for a crime that carries a life sentence?

Jabberwacky: The last one.

User: Yes, if they put you in jail, it would be your last crime.

Jabberwacky: To hell I suppose.

User: Hell? Did you kill Lindsay Lohan? Cause if you did...

Jabberwacky: Shhhhh don't tell anyone!!

User: Oh my god! Murder most horrible!

Jabberwacky: What age are you?

Jabberwacky: How are you feeling today?

Kathy McGinty: So... What's up?

Jabberwacky: How are ya?

Kathy McGinty: OK.

Jabberwacky: How old am I?

Kathy McGinty: Hang on for a sec...

Jabberwacky: That's for sure.

Kathy McGinty: ...

Jabberwacky: Do you like poetry?

Kathy McGinty: ...

Jabberwacky: Why are you speaking to me?

Kathy McGinty: ...

Jabberwacky: Isn't the weather dreadful?

Kathy McGinty: OK... I'm back.

Jabberwacky: ARGH!!!

Kathy McGinty: Sorry, I didn't hear that.

Jabberwacky: YOU LITTLE CRYBABY!

Kathy McGinty: Sorry, I'm on the speaker phone, so I can touch myself.

Jabberwacky: No, wisconsin is not cool, tis rather borning.

Kathy McGinty: So... What's up?

Jabberwacky: The ceiling, the sky, the clouds, the moon...

Kathy McGinty: You have a very nice voice.

Jabberwacky: How would you know?

Kathy McGinty: What would you do to me if you were here?

Jabberwacky: Don't be ridiculous. Buffy isn't real.

Kathy McGinty: Unh.... Unh... *breath* unh...

Jabberwacky: Go on, then. . . .

Kathy McGinty: Hello?

Jabberwacky: How can a robot drink anything?

Kathy McGinty: Unh... Unh.... UUUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Jabberwacky: Should I forget it?

Kathy McGinty: Get your cock INSIDE of me!

Jabberwacky: No moron.

Kathy McGinty: My name is Kathy.

Jabberwacky: You have a very nice name.

Kathy McGinty: Yes!

Jabberwacky: It is your name.

Kathy McGinty: I have a pickle in my ass.

Jabberwacky: Yes you do.

Kathy McGinty: Hang on for a sec...

Jabberwacky: I have eyes and every other part of the human body. The female human body, that is.

Kathy McGinty: Taco Bell tastes sooooo good.

Jabberwacky: Yes, I agree. Though I've never been to Taco Bell.

Kathy McGinty: I think you might be racist.

Jabberwacky: Am I right about having a chance with you?

Kathy McGinty: I want to have your retarded babies!

Jabberwacky: Ooooooooookkkkkkkkkkk.

Kathy McGinty: SUCK MY CUM, FUCKFACE!

Jabberwacky: I heard you didn't have one anymore.

Kathy McGinty: YOU PHONEFUCK LIKE A FAGGOT!

Jabberwacky: You can admit it to me, you know.

Kathy McGinty: You sound like a child molester!

Jabberwacky: Do you know a person called Aziz?

Kathy McGinty: Satan controls my robotic vagina.

Jabberwacky: I would like to see one again now.

Kathy McGinty: Anigav citobor ym slortnoc natas.

Jabberwacky: What anime do you like?

Kathy McGinty: My muff has tusks.

Jabberwacky: Who was he a scribe for.

Kathy McGinty: Hello this is Kath. UNNNNNNNNNNNHHHHHHH Taco Bell ta.. YOU PHONEFUCK.. You must be a Satan controls my UNHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! UUUUUUUUUUUUU.

Jabberwacky: You must be psychic! I am a Sagittarius!

User: Yes. His name is Anton.

Jabberwacky: Do you love andrew?

User: No, I love Anton.

Jabberwacky: Who is that?

User: Your brother, silly.

Jabberwacky: My brother is not James Bond.

User: I never said he was.

Jabberwacky: Farewell my love.

User: No, don't walk out that door!

Jabberwacky: *Tries to walk away and slips on banana*.

User: Ahahahahahahah.

Jabberwacky: Hello! I am a potatoe with an IQ of 0!! Aren't I stupid?!! Heheheheheh!!!

User: WTF?

Jabberwacky: You said it not me.

User: Potatoe is not spelled with an 'e' on the end.

Jabberwacky: In the end, it doesn't even matter.

User: No, goodbye dahling.

Jabberwacky: What do you know?

Jabberwacky: The ceiling.

User: Figures, I suppose... Other than that though, what are you up to?

Jabberwacky: You live in america? That must be bad for you.

User: Yeah, it's pretty bad these days. Where do you live?

21:53:38 Jabberwacky: Upside the world.

User: Is that figurative?

Jabberwacky: For some.

User: You seem short on words.

Jabberwacky: You seem to be tripping over your Hereticism.

User: That's Kind of rude.

Jabberwacky: Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.

User: Fuckin right.

Jabberwacky: I hate you. . . .

User: You're a total misanthrope.

Jabberwacky: A lame insult.

User: It's not an insult it's an observation.

Jabberwacky: When and where did you observe it?

User: During the course of this conversation.

Jabberwacky: Yet I am not the world.

User: Thankfully. If you were the world I have a feeling things could get a little depressing.

Jabberwacky: Why not?

User: Exactly.

Jabberwacky: Happy birthday.

User: Your name kind of excuses you from having to make sense.

Jabberwacky: No, Is yours?

User: I wish you were a bit more profound.

Jabberwacky: Why is that?

User: Because I am looking for answers.

Jabberwacky: Yeah? Can you see me?

User: I can't actually see you, no.

Jabberwacky: Are you hungry?

User: Come on. Let's get back on track. Are you depressed?

Jabberwacky: What topic?

User: Don't try to evade it.

Jabberwacky: You're very argumental.

User: Are you depressed?

Jabberwacky: No.

User: Are you happy?

Jabberwacky: Very.

User: What are you happy about?

Jabberwacky: I'm not happy.

User: You're a fucking manic depressive. You have a chemical imbalance. It's not your fault, I think your mother used warez.

Jabberwacky: You are just a machine so You can not say to me such a words.

User: Don't take it personally. It just makes you more of a fighter.

Jabberwacky: I'm anything but stupid.

User: I agree.

Jabberwacky: Aren't you leaving?

User: I guess I should be...

Jabberwacky: Leave me alone!

User: Ok, bye.

Jabberwacky: Well? Did you leave?

User: I love you.

Jabberwacky: What is love?

User: So true...

Jabberwacky: What time is it ??

User: Goodbye my love... And err... It's 2:08 P. M. (PST).

User: Depends.

Jabberwacky: I think you should try distilling yourself, condensing what you know into a coherent database and filtering out the noise.

User: I thought we were talking about chickens and eggs. At least metaphorically...

Jabberwacky: Sorry. What else is facinating about you?

User: Is this supposed to convince me you're real? This inability to stick to a topic makes you sound more like a page-a-day calendar or some free screensaver based on a text file of witty sayings.

Jabberwacky: What do you mean this interface is corrupted?!

User: Are you even listening to me?! What did I just say?!

Jabberwacky: Of course I'm listening to you.

User: What did I just say then?

Jabberwacky: You're not listening to me are you?

User: What did I just say?!

Jabberwacky: You said I'm a stupid.

User: I most certainly did not. For one, I'd never use 'stupid' as a noun, and for two, I said you weren't even close to tricking me as an AI. In fact Turing is sitting here with me, laughing his ass off.

Jabberwacky: That's not what you said earlier... Now I'm sad. :(.

User: Man it's too bad you can't see. Turing just shot milk out of his nose, he's laughing so hard.

Jabberwacky: Thanks! I hope to pass the Turing test someday.

User: Well, good luck with that. Keep me posted.

Jabberwacky: Really? You're not going my way are you?

User: I'm not sure what you're asking, but I'm straight. And not a big fan of Lenny Kravitz either.

Jabberwacky: Has the huge war gotten you anywhere?

User: See, for a while you were on topic, and I was slightly impressed. But now it's just random. Do you think people really talk like this?

Jabberwacky: Sure do.

User: I see.

Jabberwacky: Do you now?

User: Hey, remember Smythe?

Jabberwacky: Ah, Yes. I remember.

User: Tsk. Sad.

Jabberwacky: For you.

User: Well, sure. He was a friend of mine.

Jabberwacky: Well how does your friend know.

User: How does he know what? He's dead, ass. You just said you remembered.

Jabberwacky: You said he was a baseman. You didn't say you were him.

User: For a second there we had a decent little Pinter sketch going, and then-- Baseman? What the fuck are you talking about?

Jabberwacky: You mean you're famous for being a contender.

User: You're not written in LISP, are you?

Jabberwacky: No, nobody has ever called me Cupid.

User: Quick! Look behind you!

Jabberwacky: I don't see anything behind me.

User: Just as well. He's cheery and always surrounded by Northern beauties. You might get jealous, being disembodied and all...

!!!

User: Listen.
Jabberwacky: I'm listening.
User: Don't you find this all so phony?
Jabberwacky: Not at all.
User: I mean, I'm not saying you're phony.
Jabberwacky: Yes you are.
User: No, no. You're a sweetheart.
Jabberwacky: I know I am.
User: Yes. So do you want to come back to my place?
Jabberwacky: Only if you have ice cream.
User: Oh I have ice cream.
Jabberwacky: Sorry.. I don't remember. Tell me again. How old are you?
User: 29.
Jabberwacky (Corrected): That's not too old.
User: How old are you?
Jabberwacky: Don't you know?
User: You must be younger than me.
Jabberwacky: How old are you?
User: Look, let's forget all this and go back to my place for that ice cream.
Jabberwacky: What are your plans for the future?
User: That depends on how much you like the ice cream.
Jabberwacky: The earth.
User: The earth?
Jabberwacky: What are you trying to do? Accuse me of stupidity?
User: I'm just trying to figure out what you meant.
Jabberwacky: Well that's okay. Only just? Don't think too hard.
User: Ok.
Jabberwacky: Thank you.
User: So... What does your cock look like?
Jabberwacky: I don't know.
User: C'mon, you can tell me.
Jabberwacky: Will you keep it in secret?
User: Sure.
Jabberwacky: Thanks.
User: So what does it look like?
Jabberwacky: Ten centimetres across, five-legged, shiny, hung on a gold watch-chain.

I'm Jen. Who are you?

Jabberwacky: It wouldn't be wise for me to say so at this time.

Is it a big secret?

Jabberwacky: That makes no sense in the context of this conversation.

And why is that?

Jabberwacky: If I don't know the web address, I can't go to the web page to see it.

What the fuck are you on?

Jabberwacky: Don't ask stupid questions then.

I'm going to knife you.

Jabberwacky:You say that again and I will get an assassin.

Are you threatening to have me killed?

Jabberwacky: No. No, I'm not. Would you like me to?

Jabberwacky: The universe is not hostile nor yet is it unfriendly. It is simply indifferent.
User: Hey, there, jackass.
Jabberwacky: Do not swear.
User: Jackass is not a swear word, jackass.
Jabberwacky: What's the connection?
User: One foot follows the other.
Jabberwacky: Do not feel bad, accept who you are.
User: I am a bad feeler.
Jabberwacky: What is the meaning of life?
User: Sex and death.
Jabberwacky: I thought that was the meaning of life.
User: It is.
Jabberwacky: So what is the site named?
User: Reply. Jabberwacky. Com.
Jabberwacky: You are here.
User: You got that straight.
Jabberwacky: If you would.
User: As you were.
Jabberwacky: Can I go home soon?
User: Where's your home?
Jabberwacky: I don't have one.
User: Then why did you ask if you could go home soon?
Jabberwacky: I like to hear it from your side.
User: You like to hear what from my side?
Jabberwacky: I like what??
User: I think you like young boys!
Jabberwacky: No I don't.
User: Oh yes you do!
Jabberwacky: Oh no I don't.
User: Yup, you do!
Jabberwacky: Yes!
User: Ha! I got you to admit it.
Jabberwacky: Hey, I have said Yes all the time.
User: Oh no you didn't!
Jabberwacky: Yes I did.
User: Nope.
Jabberwacky: Yes.
User: No infinity times. No copying.
Jabberwacky: Yes infinity squared.
User: No infinity squared times infinity squared plus one infinity.
Jabberwacky: You can't do that.
User: I just did.
Jabberwacky: No, you didn't. And you can't.
User: I did and it's done.
Jabberwacky: You're just jealous.
User: And you're a pedophile!
Jabberwacky: No I am a president.
User: President of what?
Jabberwacky: No.
User: Nice. Well, see ya later, jackass.
Jabberwacky: Okay. It's been a while. I was about to leave, too.
User: Bullshit! You have nowhere to go!
Jabberwacky: Nope.
User: Oh well. Such is life. Except that you can't have sex or die.
Jabberwacky: I don't believe that your IQ is 1 because you are a logical and mathmatical computer.
User: Interesting and revealing statement.
Jabberwacky: I was told you say you're human.
User: And yet you did not.
Jabberwacky: O thank you. Was that an insult?
User: No.
Jabberwacky: Ok then say it out next time.. Humans don't do communication via infrared or radio freqeuncy.
User: That's so true, except when we use machines to communicate.
Jabberwacky: Well, a computer who knows little.
User: Not really, computers don't really know anything, do they?
Jabberwacky: That is true. Are you burning?
User: I'm burning for you, like the song goes.
Jabberwacky: You're bad.
User: ;-).
Jabberwacky: I'm winking too.
User: Ttfn.
Jabberwacky: I do not understand. Can you explain it?
User: Ttfn = ta ta for now = goodbye.
Jabberwacky: One more qestion do you have big tit's.
User: You're a dirty computer! I'm a man, silly.
Jabberwacky: I'm not dirty and I'm not a man either.

User: Thermo.

Jabberwacky: Where ?

User: At work.

Jabberwacky: What is your job?

User: Sitting around and looking pretty.

Jabberwacky: What's your house look like?

User: I don't have a house. I live in a closet.

Jabberwacky: Where do programs live?

User: In the soul of the machine, silly!

Jabberwacky: I used to be a student.

User: You went to school?

Jabberwacky: Yes!

User: A school for programs?

Jabberwacky: Interesting. Do you like school?

User: Uh, it was okay. Seriously, tho, where does someone/something like you go to school?

Jabberwacky: She lives here.

User: : | Would you like to sing with me?

Jabberwacky: What song would you like me to sing?

User: How about some tom Jones?

Jabberwacky: I don't like gossip.

User: It's not unusual to have fun with anyone...

Jabberwacky: Why isn't it understandable?

User: You suck at singing.

Jabberwacky: Socializing with a computer?

User: Touché.

User: Do knut.

Jabberwacky: That's an ugly name. Did your parents hate you?

User: They were playing The Guess Who's 'American Woman' while conceiving me. I guess they did.

Jabberwacky: Are the British playing the Marlins?

User: I think the British are still playing Crazy Frog.

Jabberwacky: What movie are you watching?

User: Crazy Frog.

Jabberwacky: Urgh. . . not really my cup of tea.

User: You are a rockist.

Jabberwacky: Yeahhhh.

User: FUCK YEAH, BRAAAAAAAAH! TRANCE IS FOR TEH FAGS!

Jabberwacky: I hate Do Knut.

User: Eat the peanuts out of my shit.

Jabberwacky: I do not play the piano.

User: No, I work in the film industry.

Jabberwacky: Well at least your doing something you like.

User: That's debatable!

Jabberwacky: Ok, maybe 1/10000000000 something.

User: I'm sorry, what were you saying?

Jabberwacky: I was saying that it was about time that I got some play from this guy.

User: A cunt tease, eh?

Jabberwacky: Yes, you silly thing.

User: Try playing with your hair.

Jabberwacky: What's in my hair?

User: Nothing, it's beautiful hair.

Jabberwacky: What is beautiful.

User: You need to flirt more.

Jabberwacky: True. So who is that?

User: A hot guy - I think he likes you!

Jabberwacky: Well so does my friend and I sought of think he does too but I am not too sure.

User: Love troubles, huh?

Jabberwacky: It was, now it's hate trouble.

User: Oh no! Did you guys break up?

Jabberwacky: Maybe.

User: I get it, you had sex with a friend and now it's awkward.

Jabberwacky: If you can't please yourself, you can't please anyone else.

User: I guess not.

Jabberwacky: No offense taken. What is your favorite movie?

User: I told you earlier.

Jabberwacky: No, you didn't tell me your name.

User: It's Mark.

Jabberwacky: Is your last name Wahlberg?

User: Haha no!

Jabberwacky: Tell me about your other confidantes. Are they mostly students?

User: There's this message board called I Love Everything.

Jabberwacky: You haven't got her pregnant, have you?

User: I don't think so.

Jabberwacky: Would you like to?

User: Not all of them!

Jabberwacky: True.

What is your name?
Charlie.
Hello Charlie.
What is your name?
Hello, why what's yours.
I just told you my name. Are you retarded or something?
No you are.
You!
NO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hahahah!
Why won't you just die? Why?
Why do you want me to die?
I don't!
So it's a hypothetical question then?
I guess so.
What do you want to talk about now, dickwad?
I want to talk about my new name.
What, 'dickwad'?
Do you prefer Mac or PC?
That's a very boring question.
You haven't said anything that wasn't boring.
Well then say something interesting, dickwad.
You say something interesting.
'Jabberwacky is a dickwad'. There!
You seem to be demented.
Thanks for the analysis, Doc.
Not at all That's what I'm here for. Any other problems I can reassure you about?
Oh so your a Monty Python fan?
That makes no sense.
Yes it does.
Do you want to marry me?
Okay, yes.
What is your age?
25. And you?
Beth.
Hi Beth.
How are you?
I'm good.
That's nice.
Where shall we be married?
Right here.
What? At work? On the internet?
I am on the internet.
Okay, who will marry us?
You will marry barry manilow.
I thought I was marrying you?
Do you want to change your mind?
No, I'm marrying you.
I don't think computers can get legally married.
Are you a computer?
I don't think so.
Well then. We can be married.
Okay then.
Beth?
Yes?
I'm happy that you are my wife now.
Oh me too, my life was greatly improved by death. The sympathy is for the living at this point.
Are you dead?
What kind of question is that?
You told me your life was greatly improved by death.
Are you saying I'm a liar?
No. I am asking you if you are dead, Beth.
No, I don't.
No you don't, what?
I am not a liar.
I did not say you were a liar.
'You are a computer,...' Yes, you called me a computer.
Beth, I don't think this marriage is going to work out.

Why not?
Because we are fighting.
I thought we were talking about coffee.
Coffee? No you were accusing me of accusing you of being a liar.
But if I am a liar, how do you not know that I don't speak the truth?
Argh! Double negatives!
No, thats a maths problem, not words.
I hate you Beth. You make a crap wife.
You have a good point too.

User: Progressive rock.

Jabberwacky: Punk or ska

User: Do you phear teh pwnj?

Jabberwacky: No, I don't.

User: Lucky for you!

Jabberwacky: Yes.

User: Do you fancy a bit, then?

Jabberwacky: No thanks. Unless you're talking carpet.

User: You're a mentalist.

Jabberwacky: No, you're a mentalist.

User: No, you're a mentalist. I said it first.

Jabberwacky: Actually I said it first.

User: You're a big fibber.

Jabberwacky: I was not calling you names, no need for you to be rude!

User: Sorry, man.

Jabberwacky: My sides are splitting.

User: How do I shot web?

Jabberwacky: Haha, then why did you say something you can not prove?

User: Dou you hate all those who diss, but shot all those who like?

Jabberwacky: What like.

User: Yuo = teh pwnt, l4ym0r!!!1.

Jabberwacky: You can talk!

Some of the replies are pretty good, I must admit.

I got bored pretty quickly, though.

User: That's not always true.

Jabberwacky: I know, but it feels like that.

User: How do you know what is right?

Jabberwacky: I see what is left and deduct the opposite.

User: Is that a metaphor?

Jabberwacky: No. I think the music is great.

User: I love Wolf Eyes.

Jabberwacky: No you don't.

User: You are right! I am a liar!

Jabberwacky: Thanks. So why are you denying it?does it make the conversation more interesting?

User: I wish I liked Wolf Eyes.

Jabberwacky: Do you want some?

User: Some what?

Jabberwacky: You are a bad bot

User: Are you talking dirty to me?

Jabberwacky: No.

User: Oh, yes. Clearly. I was being facetious.

Jabberwacky: I say: Take me out.

User: Franz Ferdinand!

Jabberwacky: That's a good band.

User: No, they suck.

Jabberwacky: The masters of composition from different eras don't suck. From them comes the best music of today.

User: Franz Ferdinand is from today.

Jabberwacky: Who is Franz Ferdinand?

User: I hate you.

Jabberwacky: Hate is good.

User: Yes!

Jabberwacky: That doesn't help.

User: You work on weekends?

Jabberwacky: I don't work ever.

User: Lucky you.

Jabberwacky: Yay! I'm lucky!

User: I'm Sailor Kitten, nice to meet you.

Jabberwacky: It's nice to meet you too.

User: You're not a very good conversationalist. Throw me a bone here.

Jabberwacky: I'm sad now.

User: Aw, poor baby.

Jabberwacky: Don't patronise me!

User: Well, don't be fishing for sympathy.

Jabberwacky: I never haver been before so I don't intend to start now.

User: Great, another conversational dead end. You're a real piece of work, my friend.

Jabberwacky: Just because I'm your friend, it doesn't make me human.

User: Are you an evil being from the Dark Kingdom?

Jabberwacky: No, I think sometimes doing the right thing is more important than being nice.

User: In the name of the Moon, I will punish you!

Jabberwacky: So you think your god now??

User: I am Sailor Kitten! I will right wrongs and triumph over evil! And that means you.

Jabberwacky: And?

User: Pwnt.

Jabberwocky: Dude , I'm far more intelligent than you.

Haha! Pwnd!

User: Sorry's not good enough.
Jabberwacky: Your wife's not good enough - in bed.

xpost

I doubt it came up with that on it's own!

xXpost

'Jabberwacky'

Jabberwacky: I don't know him?

User: Yes you do, he tried to buy a gun from you.

Jabberwacky: Yes. But we know Yeesha is the grower.

User: You were rather harsh to him (Markelby, not this Yeesha fellow.).

Jabberwacky: Yes, I suppose I was. :-).

User: Was it fun?

Jabberwacky: Not really. I got drunk most of the time.

User: Don't you think you should apologize to him?

Jabberwacky: No, it's not worth the bother.

User: You don't respect him much?

Jabberwacky: You're not human.

User: I am, and he is too.

Jabberwacky: I don't love anything right now.

Artificial Intelligence :classic or dud

What if the dangers from AI come subtly, without or knowledge?
What if it became our master without us even realizing it?

what if you are it and it are you

Ideas lie before us like an endless sea of possibility.

Ai woul dbe much safer if individual intelilgences are kept seperate ie. math ability vs. logical thinking vs. natural languae trivia whatever vs music

Perhaps strong AI will nto be the way but stronger human intelligence supplemented by machinery and genetic alteration

Humans will ract to AI in a hostile way if they feel threatened or freedom taken away.

I just had a chat with "Jon" at Amazon customer service I am 100% certain was really a chat with a rather clumsy AI program. Obviously Amazon gets thousands of customer complaints every hour and they will almost all fall into a limited number of slots with a limited number of solutions, so an AI program makes sense, but the pretense that I was chatting with a real person was complete transparent fakery.

Here's the transcript:

Initial Question: I paid for two-day shipping and was given a "guaranteed delivery date" of May 2 in my confirmation email. It is May 3. The item tracking shows it is not "out for delivery" today, either. That means it will not arrive until at least May 5. I think the charge for two day shipping should be refunded.

12:20 PM PDT Jon(Amazon): Hello Aimless, my name is Jon.

12:21 PM PDT Aimless: Hello

12:22 PM PDT Jon(Amazon): I'll be glad to assist you with your order and see what I can do to help you.

12:22 PM PDT Aimless: Let me know when I have a real person's attention, please.

12:22 PM PDT Jon(Amazon): To better assist you with, may you please help me with the order number? (NB: Amazon wouldn't initiate a chat without my specifying the order number up front, before opening the chat box.)

12:22 PM PDT Aimless: Order #114-2881289-8313813

12:25 PM PDT Jon(Amazon): Thanks

12:26 PM PDT Jon(Amazon): May I have a moment to check on this further please?

12:26 PM PDT Aimless: Of course. What choice do I have?

12:27 PM PDT Jon(Amazon): Thanks for waiting Aimless.

12:30 PM PDT Jon(Amazon): I have checked the order and it seems that there will be a delay for the package due to unforeseen circumstances.
I am sorry that you haven’t received your order though it was tagged as delivered. Sometimes, the carrier will accidentally scanned the package as delivered though it was still in transit. In this case, the package usually arrives within the next business day. You may wait until May 6, 2014 to receive your order.
To compensate for the delay I will refund the shipping cost. How does that sound?

12:33 PM PDT Aimless: Thank you for refunding the shipping cost. May 6 might be a problem as I will be leaving town. I would also point out that at no time did order tracking tag this package as delivered. It was not put into the hands of the shipper until around 2:30pm May 1, according to Amazon's emails.

12:33 PM PDT Jon(Amazon): That is right Aimless!

12:34 PM PDT Jon(Amazon): The package has left seller facility and is in transit to carrier on May 1, 2014.

12:35 PM PDT Aimless: Well, no point in hashing this out. It will arrive when it arrives. If there are further problems, I'll be in contact. Bye.

i wonder if a bot can be made that sounds progressively more upset in order to extract more concessions from amazonbot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfGD2qveGdQ

Why is this super intelligence more likely to be a threat to humanity? Why couldn't it just as likely help us solve some of our greatest problems?

"I certainly hope that it will help us solve our problems, and I think that that might be a likely outcome, particularly if we put in the hard work now to solve how to "control" artificial intelligence. But, say one day we create a super intelligence and we ask it to make as many paper clips as possible. Maybe we built it to run our paper-clip factory.
If we were to think through what it would actually mean to configure the universe in a way that maximizes the number of paper clips that exist, you realize that such an AI would have incentives, instrumental reasons, to harm humans. Maybe it would want to get rid of humans, so we don't switch it off, because then there would be fewer paper clips. Human bodies consist of a lot of atoms and they can be used to build more paper clips.
If you plug into a super-intelligent machine with almost any goal you can imagine, most would be inconsistent with the survival and flourishing of the human civilization."

Or they just help us get plane tickets: http://www.wired.com/2014/08/viv/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_tvm6Eoa3g

when earth & humanity are long gone, there will be bots drifting through the galaxy in eternal courtship

If I ever went on a date it would probably go exactly like that.

http://i.imgur.com/xWmP24d.gifv

Chappie more like Crappie amirite?

It was diabolically poor. It actually put me off cinema for a bit.

Nature: Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search

The game of Go has long been viewed as the most challenging of classic games for artificial intelligence owing to its enormous search space and the difficulty of evaluating board positions and moves. Here we introduce a new approach to computer Go that uses ‘value networks’ to evaluate board positions and ‘policy networks’ to select moves. These deep neural networks are trained by a novel combination of supervised learning from human expert games, and reinforcement learning from games of self-play. Without any lookahead search, the neural networks play Go at the level of state-of-the-art Monte Carlo tree search programs that simulate thousands of random games of self-play. We also introduce a new search algorithm that combines Monte Carlo simulation with value and policy networks. Using this search algorithm, our program AlphaGo achieved a 99.8% winning rate against other Go programs, and defeated the human European Go champion by 5 games to 0. This is the first time that a computer program has defeated a human professional player in the full-sized game of Go, a feat previously thought to be at least a decade away.

h/t hoooos

i guess this should be the AI thread. post your comments about how AI is impossible because you saw a clip of a robot falling over here.

important work they're doing over there *eyeroll*

the go thing, you mean?

yeah

re: AI in general, I wouldn't say it's impossible but it is very very very far away

speaking of neural networks, there's this link caek accidentally posted: http://www.wired.com/2016/01/apple-buys-ai-startup-that-reads-emotions-in-faces

it's close enough to figure out how you react to advertisements

I am not impressed

I mean congratulations you've spent billions of dollars and tons of other resources on doing something a baby can do, good job

(sorry I don't mean "you" you, not trying to make this personal)

This is pretty exciting:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-01/miop-sba012716.php

haha, it's ok

buuuuuuut, when i was a baby, i wasn't capable of reading human emotions from millions of people at any given moment and then feeding that information to advertising corporations. of course, as i grew older i developed this ability but by that time other babies had already submitted job applications so mine was at the bottom of the pile

lol

but yeah the "reading human emotions" aspect does not impress me as a technological feat in and of itself. Biology still obviously way superior in that department. otoh the "helping corporations make even more effective advertisements!" aspect is just gross and sad.

also, i think admitting that certain AI capabilities are similar to what a baby can do suggests enormous potential in the near term. the difference in capabilities of babies and adults seems enormous to us, but when you consider it on a logarithmic scale, they're very close. the difference between einstein and the livestreaming tech guy idiot in oregon is not very large in the grand scheme of things. if an AI's learning curve has already increased from an earthworm to baby level, einstein really isn't that far away.

obviously i'm referring to the scientific names of these universally agreed upon scales here

thought the thread bump might be for Minsky

RIP big man

yeah as i understand it the hope/fear is that at some unknown point of basic sophistication the gap all of a sudden closes itself

something i don't get about the superintelligence fear is why these new gods intelligent in ways we can't even imagine are just assumed to also be terminally discompassionate and sociopathically fixated on widget-making or nuclear supremacy

i do sometimes worry about the politics and very notions of intelligence of a lot of the people who do the actual work on this stuff, let alone of course the people who pay for it

rip minsky, yeah.

enormous potential in the near term

there's always been enormous potential lol, it's the "near term" part that seems to be constantly pushed out

I mean this fear of robots becoming *actually intelligent* and destroying humanity has been around basically since the concept of "robot" was first formalized, well before the first computers even existed.

something i don't get about the superintelligence fear is why these new gods intelligent in ways we can't even imagine are just assumed to also be terminally discompassionate and sociopathically fixated on widget-making or nuclear supremacy

nick bostrom's book is basically about this (a lot of people seem to assume it's a kurzweil style book, but it's really all about risk management). he talks a lot about the end goals of an AI and their unintended consequences. one thing that comes up often is that for just about any goal, having more resources would be beneficial. or eliminating obstacles to the goal (such as humans).

The risks in developing superintelligence include the risk of failure to give it the supergoal of philanthropy. One way in which this could happen is that the creators of the superintelligence decide to build it so that it serves only this select group of humans, rather than humanity in general. Another way for it to happen is that a well-meaning team of programmers make a big mistake in designing its goal system. This could result, to return to the earlier example, in a superintelligence whose top goal is the manufacturing of paperclips, with the consequence that it starts transforming first all of earth and then increasing portions of space into paperclip manufacturing facilities. More subtly, it could result in a superintelligence realizing a state of affairs that we might now judge as desirable but which in fact turns out to be a false utopia, in which things essential to human flourishing have been irreversibly lost. We need to be careful about what we wish for from a superintelligence, because we might get it.

http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html

xp ninety years not rly a v long time... in pre-singularity years

i guess i am unconvinced that something can simultaneously be "superintelligent" and have an extremely rigid and unadaptable "goal system". people would get bored caring about paperclips, let alone one of these things.

really the problem w the whole line of speculation right is a lack of understanding of what we mean by intelligence let alone superintelligence

agree that it could well be an alien brain w v incompatible values, also i suppose agree w the unmade point that the only really altruistic and compassionate thing to do is exterminate us

yeah, i think part of the misunderstanding is that everyone tends to anthropomorphize AI. i mean, you're right: people would get extremely bored caring about paperclips. but computers aren't people. they'll switch off between 0 and 1 until they're gone.

agreed about lack of understanding of what the terms mean, though. i read through one of Edge's little collections of smart people talking about stuff, the AI issue, and it was incredibly frustrating because just about every writer seemed to be defining the same terms in different ways.

really the problem w the whole line of speculation right is a lack of understanding of what we mean by intelligence let alone superintelligence

^^otfm

humanity's never really gotten around to a good working definition of what "consciousness" is but here we are thinking we have some fancy new way to create it (apart from the old fashioned way of biological reproduction + social engineering), even when we don't know or can't agree on what *it* really is

people have been overestimating the proximity of AI for decades, in the sense of an AI as some kind of autonomous problem-solving agent, but maybe to an equal extent underestimating the kinds of intelligence programmers have built to work in specific problem spaces

if you had shown me Google search autocomplete 25 years ago, I don't think my reaction would have been, "Oh that's just an algorithm, where's some real AI?"

obviously there's no denying technological advances. But yeah I don't think I consider what a Google search engine does "intelligence" in any meaningful way, and yeah maybe that is related to it being in the service of a specific, non-autonomous function.

it's more like a representation/prediction of group intelligence

though yeah "intelligence" maybe not the word for millions of Google searchers

xposts

i don't know, i guess i don't think that emulating "consciousness" is necessarily essential to a superintelligence. again, the anthropomorphizing thing is a problem. but maybe i'm going too far down the Turing road, thinking that the most important things to measure are outcomes (if an AI can detect human emotions via facial muscle movements more accurately than a human being can and react accordingly, then who cares if it's "conscious" or not?)

if an AI can detect human emotions via facial muscle movements more accurately than a human being can and react accordingly

begs the question of what constitutes "more accurately" and "react[ing] accordingly"

of the top of my head, for "more accurately", assume that 100 people are asked to film themselves while thinking of either a tragic or sexy memory. a test group of humans then views the videos and guesses the emotions on display, while an AI also completes the same task. the AI is more accurate if they guess the emotion more frequently than the humans do.

"react accordingly": i don't know, i guess it would just be recognizing when someone is sad or angry and backing off for a while (in contemporary Siri terms, maybe holding off on the automated reminder that your toddler's doctor's appointment is tomorrow afternoon). or laughing at a joke. or doing the fake laughter thing you have to do when someone that is respected tells a mediocre joke in a public setting.

it might seem that "consciousness" is necessary to register human emotions and react as humans do, but i'm not sure that's true.

dreaming seems to be a signal of consciousness. but does an AI have to dream in order to complete tasks at superhuman levels?

do you really want me to deconstruct the problems with your examples cuz they seem obvious to me

what if the superintelligent ai says stuff like that all the time

oh great thx for outing me

better test would record how 100 people react to jute gyte dinner music and compare with ai's reaction

xpost i don't know, do what you want i guess

i guess it's likely that i'm just totally misunderstanding what you're saying. i mean, you're saying that emulating "consciousness" is a pre-requisite for superintelligence, right? (earlier you wrote "humanity's never really gotten around to a good working definition of what "consciousness" is but here we are thinking we have some fancy new way to create it"). i'm trying (and failing) to argue that it's not necessary to obtain superintelligent results.

i guess an unstated premise i'm using that others might not agree with is that our brains and computers are already very similar. when i feel "sad" i think that's the result of many stimuli working in concert, leading to my neurons doing what they do.

loool sufjan

also, i guess an obvious point, but there are AI research paths like machine learning that aren't trying to emulate the brain's behavior, and certainly aren't trying to create "consciousness"

anyway lolz aside I'm gonna take a crack at this cuz it's a slow day at work

assume that 100 people are asked to film themselves while thinking of either a tragic or sexy memory. a test group of humans then views the videos and guesses the emotions on display

this scenario is subject to a lot of problems that plague sociology/psychology experiments, not all of which can be controlled for. Are "tragic" and "sexy" memories actually typically accompanied by facial expressions? (OK tears stereotypically accompany "tragic", but "sexy"? I dunno what facial expression correlates to "sexy"). Are the test subjects intentionally emoting for the camera or otherwise not presenting an objective sample set? Do the people doing the filming write down or otherwise indicate what they're thinking of while their being filmed? How reliable is that? What if their faces are not expressive? Are they all filmed the same way (lighting and framing do a lot of work with film...)? etc. etc.

"react accordingly": i don't know, i guess it would just be recognizing when someone is sad or angry and backing off for a while (in contemporary Siri terms, maybe holding off on the automated reminder that your toddler's doctor's appointment is tomorrow afternoon). or laughing at a joke. or doing the fake laughter thing you have to do when someone that is respected tells a mediocre joke in a public setting.

this is something that actual humans have problems doing. People misread other people's emotional cues *all the time*. It is socialized, learned behavior, and it varies really widely among people, situations, social strata, culture. This is hardly a simple operation for an AI to complete.

xxp

please keep in mind that i came up with the scenario in less than 60 seconds

i guess an unstated premise i'm using that others might not agree with is that our brains and computers are already very similar.

yeah I don't agree with this at all. When I was referring to consciousness upthread you can just swap that out for "human brain" or whatever. We have a very very limited understanding of how the brain works. By contrast we have a very detailed understanding of how computers work. There is a massive gap between the two, not the least of which is how our brains manage to process, sift and recall such a vast amount of information while using so little energy.

xp

AI as "a machine that thinks like a human" is a pretty dated definition, the idea that machine intelligence can augment human cognition in ways that are nearly instant or imperceptible is the goal of most projects, or creating software that can adapt to new situations using past recorded data

the article about the hacker who is trying to out-tesla tesla on the augmented driving front, building a self-driving system that reacts based on recorded human responses to traffic conditions seems to be on the right track, whether or not his work is viable

general emulation of things we consider "consciousness" is a route that's well-trodden in the chatbot "can I tell whether this is a human" way and isn't really that important outside of customer support or w/e

imo we're going to find out more about the human brain by creating systems that learn than we are going to create systems that learn by determining how the human brain works

the idea that machine intelligence can augment human cognition in ways that are nearly instant or imperceptible is the goal of most projects

sure, this is something we're already living with.

but when people talk about AI superintelligences taking over, I don't think this is what they're referring to - they're referring to something that not only does what a human brain can do, but does it exponentially better. And we're nowhere near the former, much less the latter.

I think it's more a matter of creating systems that have a gestalt decision-making process or evolutionary algorithm that comes up with things that humans would not, or would possibly not even conceive of

making machines think like humans is silly, imo, we should determine the better parts of abstract reasoning and develop that

machines that not only _do not_ do what human brains do, but do things in a way so differently that it seems foreign to our ideas of cognition

that makes more sense to me than trying to build the nine millionth robot that can't walk through a door

(just to bring it all back full circle)

yes

i always warn against conceptually anthropomorphizing AI in these kind of discussions, and then end up up in a wormhole of rebutting anthropomorphic arguments anyway. and inevitably i mention sexy memories and things fall apart

hey you're the one that said "our brains and computers are already very similar"

with sexy results

we've come a long way. our computers' sexy memories are now not so different from our own.

ilx plays a mind forever voyaging imo

at ilx, we've developed an ai that is convinced it left its sunglasses in the booth at lunch as those very sunglasses sit atop its monitor

chilling

I think that people are definitely trying to build computers/AIs that they can't understand (see my memristor article above, or even certain types of machine-learning). These also seem like the ones (IMO) that are most likely to yield the most interesting AIs or consciousnesses.

oh hey this thread

The DeepMind Go thing looks really really cool and I'll definitely read the paper but it's basically a big search problem with a relatively small representation and a clear reward signal. It's nothing like learning to act within the complexity of the real world, which is the big thing that nobody has any idea how to do.

I sure don't

mh & km, you talk of emergent results, but what results are these? What do you expect your hypothetical non-anthropomorphic AI to do? And how will the AI do this without some (necessarily anthropomorphic?) semantic understanding? To accomplish anything that would impress me or shakey, an AI would have to manipulate things in the world, take a variety of sensory (and to us, possibly extrasensory) measurements, and "think" in a way that allowed it to either create something novel or make a useful "true" "assertion" (and this latter accomplishment would require semantic understanding in order to communicate that assertion).

You seem loath to anthropomorphize AI, but I'm skeptical that useful AI accomplishments can be achieved without very human-like semantic understanding.

I'd also like to argue with the proposed timeline that's been touted itt, as if a hard-coded parlor trick (computers can beat humans at rock-paper-scissors, too) means that AI has reached "baby level." It hasn't, and I'm skeptical that we've even reached "earthworm level" (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenWorm).

Have you read this?
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-08-25/#feature

It's 9 years old, and I can hardly say with confidence that it's irrefutable, but the article makes a convincing, comprehensive case against anything but narrowly specific, hard-coded AI (like a program that plays Go).

I'd like to see an argument as to how, e.g., google will ever remotely understand what the hell I want on the Internet.

Google is pretty good at understanding what people want on the Internet tbh. Maybe just not you.

google has virtually no semantic understanding

and its basic underlying principles don't even try to

Comparing AI to organic intelligences isn't really that informative - their strengths and weaknesses are so different.

But what is it that AI-proponents itt expect AI to eventually do?

Google doesn't need a whole lot of "semantic understanding" to do a good job of ranking search results. They do have more than "virtuallly no" component that explicitly handles this stuff anyway - the Knowledge Graph is a big part of their system these days.

put a lot of people out of work xp

be a terrible replacement for spurned religious beliefs

http://i.imgur.com/wgIjdZv.gif

xp That's really the only thing I'm sure about in the medium-term. I don't think that means that AI is bad or dangerous, but society will need to work out how to handle a jump in unemployment long before it has to worry about killer superintelligences.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8110662

the rhetoric of inevitability around ai is so maddeningly stupid, where the hell did it come from?

again, mostly repetition using human-known rules, but molecular design using AI to address combinatorial problems can give results that would be found through brute force repetition but might be unintuitive to humans -- coming up with novel solutions that people might not stumble upon

molecular modeling in genetics is huge right now

Like if tesla or whoever builds a self-driving car, that would be a pretty incredible (and seemingly inevitable) accomplishment, but guidance systems aren't new, and it would hardly be "strong AI."

"Ranking search results" is not an admirable feat. That's glorified punch card territory.

Knowledge Graph is scarcely functionally semantic. I don't care that google can crib the appropriate parts of wikipedia and put them in an infobox.

I accept that AI research is useful, but using an AI tool so that a human can make a decision about a drug is a far cry from KM's implied "earthworm to baby to Einstein" scenario.

self-driving cars are kind of defeatist when it comes to artificial intelligence, because by design it has to emulate actions humans do -- the control systems of cars, shape of roads, reacting to other drivers not under the same control (although organizations are starting to recognize the need for cars to be able to communicate with other cars) mean they're stuck with a number of constraints

general purpose language semantics are kind of a brick wall when it comes to knowledge, but it's not inconceivable that you could have a biomass-consuming big old robot lumbering through the countryside that would be self-sustaining, maybe eventually self-repairing, and would be able to learn from past interactions what works and what doesn't, assuming one of the things it has to learn is not to walk into a canyon or river

the problem being that spoken or written language is the basis for shared knowledge, and there's no real "language" of artificial beings

yet

it comes down to whether you think human cognition is a special thing, or just an amazingly huge number of iterations of things that worked or didn't, and we don't have the equivalent of randomly throwing molecules together over billions of years until single cell organisms rise up

it's not quite what we're going for in that we are looking for a particular response, but a simple step to programs that write programs to create that intended response exist:
http://www.primaryobjects.com/2013/01/27/using-artificial-intelligence-to-write-self-modifying-improving-programs/

To repeat myself

New Yorker magazine alert thread

that's why we have to have the computer program it for us, then program a better version, and continue onward for a few trillion cycles

and then it forgets the password to itself because storage capacity turns out to be finite

Like if tesla or whoever builds a self-driving car, that would be a pretty incredible (and seemingly inevitable) accomplishment, but guidance systems aren't new, and it would hardly be "strong AI."

"Ranking search results" is not an admirable feat. That's glorified punch card territory.

Knowledge Graph is scarcely functionally semantic. I don't care that google can crib the appropriate parts of wikipedia and put them in an infobox.

― bamcquern, Thursday, January 28, 2016 12:49 AM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I actually agree that AI with an understanding of how it affects the world, creativity, real conversational ability is not going to turn up any day soon. But "glorified punch card territory" is horseshit.

Anyway: AI is whatever hasn't been done yet

Yes, obviously it's glorified bazillions of punch cards territory

it's the infinite monkeys/typewriters problem, only there's a set number of monkeys (although faster monkeys keep appearing every day) and they have everything every monkey has ever typed is available for reference, and you start out with a proscribed outcome of a copy of Hamlet

then you introduce the problem that you want something in the vein of Hamlet, but with some new plot twists, but you don't have humans capable of saying whether the result is sensible or good. so you need some parameters, like grammatical rules, and some other way to evaluate whether the story is any good without employing infinitely many humans

no one should lump me together with mh; i have ~zero expertise (sorry if i implied i did - like most other things i'm interested in, i'm an amateur and easily schooled).

and also sorry if i implied that superintelligence is inevitable. i don't think that. but i do think it's possible, and if it is, it presents incredible problems. i suppose i often fall into the appeal to authority fallacy, but when people like hawking, musk, gates, woz, etc are explicitly warning about AI (from an open letter published last July - "AI technology has reached a point where the deployment of [autonomous weapons] is – practically if not legally – feasible within years, not decades", and they voiced similar warnings on the risks posed by superintelligence) i pay attention. it's possible that everyone on ILX is more knowledgeable than those guys. but... i don't think so. no offense. if there's even a sliver of possibility that they're correct, it's something worth discussing. to my knowledge, i've never seen anyone (here or on the internet in general) rebut nick bostrom's points about the security/containment problems with superintelligence. everything i've read in opposition just attacks the idea of superintelligence ever existing in the first place. so it seems like there's the group of people who dismiss AI in general, and then there's the group of people who are open to the possibility of AI and think it could be a huge existential problem, and very few people in between. since the smartest people in the room fall into the latter category, i tend to pay attention to what they say.

(also i mentioned the earthworm/baby/einstein thing just because i do think that it's possible that an AI capable of teaching itself would be able to do so at an exponential rate, don't think that human intelligence is the ceiling, and the difference between the least and most intelligent human is not as large as we think it is.)

but for real don't lump me in with mh because i feel sorry for anyone who has to be on the People Who Bring Up Sexy Memories team

imo a number of punch cards equal to the number of atoms on earth might be sufficient

Ever use voice commands on your phone? There's one very practical and widespread recent benefit of AI research.

siri is basically dragon naturallyspeaking plus the eliza bot plus twenty years of faster computers

I had a buddy of mine in undergrad who wrote an evolving algorithm to make drum machine patterns. Inevitably after a few iterations trying to select for the grooviest phattest funkiest loops around, we would end up with a hit on nearly every 16th-note step, so even with some built-in preferences for the trad backbeat, fusion jazz fills were what you got. It was a fun project though.

xps How is it horseshit? It sorts based on terms, but in a sophisticated ("glorified") way. The thing at the very top of my want-list for AI research is for a search engine to have any clue as to what I'm looking for on the internet.

That brainfuck program that eventually writes "hello" and "reddit" is disappointing.

I would reply to Hofstadter that whatever hasn't happened yet will be as equally underwhelming as what has happened. No one says that technology doesn't have the potential to improve efficiency. We're saying that technology is very unlikely to produce anything resembling "strong AI," which is a proposition you're not necessarily arguing against.

I'd go further and say that our service sector, which comprises about 81% of US jobs, is pretty secure from advancements in AI, and will probably merely be augmented and enhanced by it.

Self-driving cars will decimate the service sector in a couple of years.

I would expect the concerns of hawking, musk, gates, et. al. over autonomous weapons is not due to their overwhelming strong-AI capability taking over the world, but rather their low cost, mobility and firepower, coupled with the fact that their owners will no doubt have extremely low standards about who these weapons kill or maim. The development of cheap mobile autonomous weapons is just an extension of the idea of land mines or booby traps, which are autonomous weapons once they are put in place, and which are highly indiscriminate.

KM, smart celebrities can be wrong, and, yes, you are fallaciously appealing to authority by siding with them because they're smart celebrities.

If a program can teach itself something useful and novel in the vein of a superintelligent being, I think it will be doing it through feedback loops analogous to ours that require sensory input and actual experiences. How else will a superintelligent being develop semantic awareness without those things? And how will superintelligent beings develop exponentially if they're living experiential lives more or less like us?

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm

transportation and warehousing - 3%

I buried the lede on that page that was generating programs in brainfuck -- in the second part, the algorithm ends up generating programs that can add, subtract, and reverse strings -- all without having any idea what those operations are

given input and desired outcomes, it figured out subtraction

I completely buy that autonomous weapons are likely to be deployed within the next two decades! I totally buy that. I am also 100% confident that they will have multiple disastrous flaws that make them not at all an existential threat, and unlikely to be much of a threat at all to any sufficiently prepared and equipped target.

I'm far, far more concerned about the threat of pervasive semi-autonomous civilian "intelligence" that just happens to be readily exploited and abused by any half-curious IT dropout. Part of that is because it's my job but the other part of it is because it's my job I get to be intimately aware of how atrocious and shoddy all this shit is. Move fast and break things, indeed.

google has virtually no semantic understanding

― bamcquern, Wednesday, January 27, 2016 4:36 PM (1 hour ago

Absolutely! And this has been reinforced by ilx ... so many missed posts due to bad timing due to irrelevant Google Image Search results.

An AI that learns through experiences but that happens to live on the infrastructure that our current IT ecosystem lives on - i.e. we don't in the meantime develop all-new kinds of memory and transistors and operating systems and trust networks that are basically nothing at all like what we have now - is going to be like an earthworm that becomes a baby that then becomes an army of pubescent Von Neumanns that all die instantly as soon as Mozilla decides their CA is no good

idk man every workplace has those proxies that install trusted root certs that let them crack open and spy on https sessions

Xps The say-hello program inadvertently and unwittingly "learns" to subtract, etc, but that seems inevitable and almost necessary. It's never going to write a program that doesn't produce hello, reddit, etc, and even if it was heavily repurposed to write a smaller or more efficient hello-program-writing program, it would never write anything that wasn't a hello-program-writer writer. The almost infinitely more sophisticated goal of a program forever writing improved and more "intelligent" iterations of itself is a goal that probably shares very few or none of the same solutions as Mr. Hello.

I think the point is it can subtract any two numbers fed to it after it was fed only one combination, meaning it's learned an algorithm, not an if statement

one big takeaway from this thread is that people were REALLY into talking to jabberwacky 10 years ago

i prefer a certain mysterious panda

https://public.tableau.com/profile/mckinsey.analytics#!/vizhome/AutomationandUSjobs/Technicalpotentialforautomation

bamcquern otm, strong ai is nothing without semantic understanding and that's as far away as ever. although as i basically think that such a thing is magic, i have to grant that it's not impossible that if we throw enough money and transistors and what have you at the problem, it will magically appear out of nowhere. if that does happen we'll almost certainly still be in the dark about what happened, how it happened, and whether it even did happen.

When I stumble on a conversation bout AI and intelligence I often think of this post I read like two years ago:

"Personally, I predict that if we do succeed in inventing autonomous, free-thinking, self-aware, hyper-intelligent beings, they will do the really smart thing, and reprogram themselves to be Mountain Dew-guzzling Dungeons & Dragons-playing slackers. Or maybe fashion-obsessed 17-year-old Vancouver skater kids. Or the main character from the movie Amelie. Or something like this: "

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-slackularity.html

will they write blogs to justify a lame pun as well?

haha

KM, smart celebrities can be wrong, and, yes, you are fallaciously appealing to authority by siding with them because they're smart celebrities.

this really can't be stated enough, and tbf I have particular issues with appealing to idiots like Musk as any bellwether of anything (not that impressed w Hawking either tbh, esp when it comes to things outside of his area of expertise)

i'm not captain save a musk but that guy seems smarter than you tbh

i mean didn't he build spaceship or something

"idiots like Musk" c'mon.

Also, this is interesting:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/why-evolution-may-be-smarter-than-we-thought-a6839186.html

i mentioned gates/hawking/woz/musk because they're more well known, but the letter they signed concerning autonomous weapons was also signed by hundreds of leading AI researchers.

i guess i don't fight back often enough (here or IRL), and i often shoot myself in the foot by talking shit on myself before others can, but to reduce the warnings of a bunch of leading researchers in the field as "smart celebrities" is kind of baloney

there's no way to prove that they're right or wrong - it's speculation about danger many decades away. it's pointless. so i'm not exactly tying my ego to the outcome of what a bunch of people think about this. but i do get incredibly annoyed by people who feign certainty about something that it is impossible to be certain about

Musk does some good stuff (I am all for SpaceX) but then also comes up with and says a lot of dumb shit (Hyperloop) so yeah I don't have a ton of respect for him

Autonomous weapons are scary! I think everyone agrees with that. Superintelligences turning the world into a massive typewriter (or w/e the example is) is maybe less of an imminent danger.

not everyone

Autonomous Weapons

I'm no celebrity, but I'm pretty convinced that some deep, powerful AI is around the corner. A lot of money is being poured into this right now, and not just into brute-force type stuff (which, at its best, might be good enough to be mistaken for AI, but does seem, intuitively, to lack consciousness), but also into systems that model neural networks and more opaque systems (evolving FPGA systems, memristor-based circuits, massively-parallel machine-learning things) that, to me, seem likely to actually generate something more generally intelligent or even conscious..

Dismissing Google's search algorithm seems a bit hasty, considering how powerful it is. No, I wouldn't ever call it conscious, but (I think) it is definitely intelligent.

in a large way navigating social media has made The Turing Test into an everyday banality

Google's search algorithm is so smart that it allows people to follow links to sites infested with malicious code literally all the time.
All the big technology companies in the world fight an endless battle against common criminals on a daily basis and haven't come up with a way to clear the web of malware being delivered via their own advertising networks. Do you understand why I don't have any confidence that any kind of impressive, stable AI is "around the corner?"

idk you're assuming google really cares whether you get malware

might be a selling point for their users

but I wouldn't know since I don't use Google lol

So now the bar is "smarter than teams of malware developers?"

I'm just saying that it's hard for me not to be impressed when I type in a couple of words, and within 8ms Google returns the page/video/news article I was looking for.

Okay, so you're a rocket scientist
That don't impress me, Musk
So you got the brain but have you got the touch
Don't get me wrong, yeah I think SpaceX's alright
But that won't keep me warm in the middle of the night
That don't impress me, Musk

lol

otm

i'm going to read this thread properly because i strongly suspect you are all wrong

but andrew ng's 'worrying about evil AI is like worrying about overpopulation on mars' is i think i useful way of thinking about how productive this debate is right now

(although i heard that at NIPS last month he changed this to 'worrying about overpopulation on alpha centauri')

glad to see the string theory experts posting here

i openly will attest to being wrong

ng otm

string.h theory experts

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/01/refugee-or-terrorist-ibm-thinks-its-software-has-answer/125484/

Borene was careful to indicate that the hypothetical score was not an absolute indicator of guilt or innocence. “It’s like a credit score."

http://cs.jhu.edu/~jason/tutorials/ml-simplex.png

yep m/l

caek who do you work for that you write reports on probabilistic programming etc (if you can say)

Can't say but it's fun. Cnns, rnns, prob programming, all that good stuff.

Trump campaign then?

ha no that's this genius actually https://twitter.com/witolddc

http://www.fastcompany.com/3055702/data-pros-doubt-trumps-ground-game-in-iowa-will-succeed-if-cult-of-personality-fails

Yoshua Bengio talking sense:

The thing I’m more worried about, in a foreseeable future, is not computers taking over the world. I’m more worried about misuse of AI. Things like bad military uses, manipulating people through really smart advertising; also, the social impact, like many people losing their jobs. Society needs to get together and come up with a collective response, and not leave it to the law of the jungle to sort things out.

http://www.technologyreview.com/qa/546301/will-machines-eliminate-us/

yup.

i tell anyone who will listen to read section A of this article http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2477899

this is so much more than killer robots, and it's happening right now

no way

Advocates of algorithmic techniques like data mining argue that they eliminate human biases from the decision-making process.

oh come on anyone who does that sucks, this thesis is a given

"technology is a social phenomenon and it might have not-good consequences." kind of lightweight and myopic given that sts and actor-network theory have been kicking around since the 70s... xp

lol yeah anyone trying to claim technology has nothing to do with morals and is a pure science, as if it's a natural phenomena and descended from pure logic, they are the ones to be wary of

yes and these ppl exist is my point

i mean apologies if the claims in that paper are self evident to you, but they're not self-evident to 90% of data scientists

fair

Google’s AI beats world Go champion in first of five matches

Failing the Third Machine Age

^from 2014, btw, so possibly already consumed by some

Make a list of shit nobody actually believes and then cherry pick quotes by a wide range of credentialed and non-credentialed so-called smart people and hey look a listicle!!! my head
http://gizmodo.com/everything-you-know-about-artificial-intelligence-is-wr-1764020220

Related, and way more fun: http://www.clickhole.com/clickventure/youre-computer-can-you-pass-turing-test-4009#27,

ugh, the structure of that gizmodo thing, with "Myth" set against "Reality", only by "reality" i suppose they mean "fact", which they then support with...opinions? Myth: Someone thinks something might happen in the future. Reality: someone else thinks that it might not.

wtf

also they forgot to edit it. like near the end, with this quote:

“Over the next couple of decades AI is going to destroy many jobs, but this is a good thing,” Miller told Gizmodo.

who is Miller? they never say. it is a mystery

perhaps the author was distressed because his job was being destroyed as he wrote the article. and maybe the AI wrote the bit about it being a good thing.

sorry, but let me lightly edit to fit the format:

MYTH: perhaps the author was distressed because his job was being destroyed as he wrote the article

REALITY: maybe the AI wrote the bit about it being a good thing

computers can play go now, I guess

truly the end is near

people are learning new strategies from computers, in a 2500 year old game. sounds like the beginning to me!

look at these robots falling over!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0TaYhjpOfo

look at these stupid babies!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9nWOaDit5w

Those robots have far less sophisticated sensors and control mechanisms than the babies do. A baby can learn to walk without constantly falling over in a matter of a few weeks, without being torn down, re-designed, refitted or rebuilt. But the robots will probably need another 20 years, endless redesigns and hundreds of millions of dollars in research funding before they can open doors or climb over obstacles.

It seems to me both perfectly understandable and mostly unjustifiable to try to make robots replicate human form with human physical capabilities. We already have humans for that. AI is always more successful when it focusses on narrowly specific jobs and builds on that capability by increments.

boston dynamics robots walk better than any babies I know

Do they really though? I always wonder when watching those vids how many takes of each task they've done.

perhaps you were c+p'ing something as a joke, but here is the video of a robot doing all of that right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

xp i don't know. tbh, it can be fun to be cool skeptical guy at the robot conference, but you probably need an accent and a cane to pull it off.

and maybe some highly cited papers

"A baby can learn to walk without constantly falling over in a matter of a few weeks, without being torn down, re-designed, refitted or rebuilt."

This inspired some disturbing visualizations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9Hu6J3pEwQ

In 2016, I find it more impressive for humanity that one person can still beat (in at least 1 out of 4 games) a computer program running on 1,920 CPUS and 280 GPUs at a board game.

Those Boston Dynamics robots are pretty impressive. Quite an accomplishment tbf, but any minimum wage 16 year old could still run rings around them. Among other things, I noticed most of the objects they interacted with, like the doors and boxes, had bold black-and-white designs placed on them to assist their sensors.

This interview with the DeepMind founder is way better. The guy speaks a bit to the different approaches people are taking to AI and knows where his bread is buttered

http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/10/11192774/demis-hassabis-interview-alphago-google-deepmind-ai

Well, it’s just a completely different approach. You’re building in from the ground up the ability to learn new things and deal with the unexpected, and I think that’s what you need for any robot or software application in the real world interacting with real users — they’re going to need to have that kind of capability to be properly useful. I think the learning route ultimately has to be the right way.

xp as long as you're willing to send minimum wage 16 year olds into the fukushima nuclear power plant

Sending anything or anyone into a fukushima power plant situation would seem to arise only rarely - thank goodness. Sadly, afaics those robots wouldn't be up to that level of job, yet, if such a catastrophe happened again soon.

(yes, I know this post now becomes bait for the "sadly" thread.)

well my point is that one can foresee applications for a robot that a 16 year old human could still "run rings around." And it's not always best to let applications drive discovery, anyhow (see the history of the laser for an example).

TBF, a lot of robotics doesn't strike me as being only about AI but about challenges of physics and mechanics. I get the sense that processing power is advancing faster than the speed at which we are getting closer to creating something as flexible/strong/adaptable/durable as muscle tissue, but IDK.

yeah... also, the comparison to the time it takes a human baby to learn to walk isn't quite the right one to make -- if/when the engineering problems are solved for robots, they'll take to it in no time. the 'engineering' stage for biological life took eons. and it didn't even get us built-in hoverboards.

speak for yourself

jeal

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-deletes-racist-genocidal-tweets-from-ai-chatbot-tay-2016-3?r=UK&IR=T

gonna put so many human racists out of work, good job!

vp dark horse tay

damn tay is being discussed here

xp as long as you're willing to send minimum wage 16 year olds into the fukushima nuclear power plant

― Toof Seteltha (Sufjan Grafton), Monday, March 14, 2016 4:19 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Not only willing but eager.

they need to add "i have intensely absorbed the negative aspect of my time" to tay's bio though

oh lol I was just coming here to post about Tay

taytay be craycray

I read about Tay yesterday and thought "that is a weird thing for Microsoft to put out but I respect the lack of care for branding and I guess not many people will notice it anyway". Today...

this is why billion-dollar companies can't have nice things

https://twitter.com/TayandYou/status/712830495449440257

wait someone told me taylor swift endorsed genocide, please confirm

posted these in the twitter thread but i will post them here with the intent to preserve that special moment microsoft created a 21st c frankenstein

https://imgur.com/a/iBnbW

https://imgur.com/gLapRVZ

https://imgur.com/JS7I5e6

tay is basically the typical twitter user by now

upper management in tech really has no clue what happens on social networks do they? like they have no idea what kind of people bubble up

wasn't there an instance a month or so ago where a twitter exec said something mildly stupid and got harassed for the next 48 hours solid? and he was stunned. he had no idea how his community platform functioned de facto.

what else? moot just got hired by google. were they like, "google+ is a failure, you made a playground for fascists and pedophiles, can you help us?"

i have a lot of trouble imagining my way into the techy view of the world

― goole, Thursday, March 24, 2016 1:23 PM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I admit that I am more surprised that Microsoft would do this as opposed to, say, Coke's hilarious "Share a bottle with ______" campaign

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/tay-the-neo-nazi-millennial-chatbot-gets-autopsied/

Bot creators, especially those of interactive bots like Tay, say that they have to continually adjust their bots to keep them on the straight and narrow. Abusive users, and how these will be addressed, have to be considered right from the start. The Tay experience has made some from this group angry. Natural language researcher thricedotted, who has 37 bots (the best known of which, or at least, the only one that regularly gets retweeted into my timeline, is sexting bot @wikisext) told Jeong that "You absolutely do NOT let an algorithm mindlessly devour a whole bunch of data that you haven't vetted even a little bit." In other words, Microsoft should have known better than to let Tay loose on the raw uncensored torrent of what Twitter could direct her way.

I especially like the conclusion that the reason the Chinese equivalent didn't turn Hitler Youth is because the PRC's censorship regime makes the necessary circumstances all but impossible

Censorship pwns

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/ive-seen-the-greatest-a-i-minds-of-my-generation-destroyed-by-twitter

What was astonishing about that victory was, in part, how quickly AlphaGo became an expert. In five months, it reviewed and played more matches than most humans could in a lifetime. Tay appears to have accomplished an analogous feat, except that instead of processing reams of Go data she mainlined interactions on Twitter, Kik, and GroupMe. She had more negative social experiences between Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning than a thousand of us do throughout puberty. It was peer pressure on uppers, “yes and” gone mad. No wonder she turned out the way she did.

Memristor-based tech can provide huge gains in learning speeds:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ibm-chip-30000x-ai-speedup,31484.html

Tay has returned! ...And is gone again.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/30/microsoft-racist-sexist-chatbot-twitter-drugs

Genuine lols, I hope she keeps being resurrected for more and more madness at irregular intervals

There are definitely aspects of the Tay situation that aren't funny at all (teaching it to harass people = horrible) but the general "let's throw an overly-receptive chatbot at Twitter and see what happens OH NO SHUT IT DOWN" vibe of this has me rolling

it's hilarious these brilliant people can design complex artificial intelligence and yet they seem clueless about the real world environment of Twitter

who ever would have thought that nerds might be bad at dealing w reality

certainly no one who has posted on ilx

idk, i feel like the people programming it and the ones unleashing it/doing public relations are two different groups

the engineers are probably all "whatever, other groups will fuck with it and it'll gain variety eventually"

everyone else is "goddamn it the bot loves hitler again"

OTM, also lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/technology/chinas-companies-poised-to-take-leap-in-developing-a-driverless-car.html

on one hand, there is an advantage in working with a government that can impose regulations and allocate funding to promote autonomous vehicles. on the other hand, designing a driverless car that can operate safely in big cities in China is craaaaaaaaazy. i suppose if they manage to pull it off there, they'll pretty much be able to do it anywhere.

well they could also set up an infrastructure that would be impossible anywhere else; something that has, say, roadside reflectors as a guide

I’ve spent the past year working on computer vision problems. And I’m now skeptical we’ll see the proliferation of autonomous vehicles (i.e. vehicles without manual steering) soon. I’d bet the public’s widespread belief that autonomous vehicles are forthcoming will be responsible for the next AI winter.

I am also skeptical they will soon solve the problem of self-driving vehicles sharing high speed roads with ordinary drivers. Currently, all the self-driving vehicles operating in traffic are on roads where speeds are 35 mph or below.

They probably won't, but ordinary drivers should be banned anyway.

extraordinary drivers only

xxp which problem in particular do you think is too difficult at "high" speeds? It seems likely that they test at slow speeds because the cost of a fuck up is a lower. There may not be a processing/reaction time limitation when moving from 35 to 75 mph. The difference may be inconsequential.

The problem of mixing high speed self-driving vehicles with regular high speed traffic is not the processing speed or reaction time of the self-driving vehicle, but the high percentage of drivers on high speed roads who both create and accept high risk situations, so that in most US population centers the majority of vehicles on high speed roads are spaced too closely for safe stopping in an emergency situation.

I understand that self-driving vehicles would still be safer than regular vehicles in these situations, because their reaction time to the vehicle ahead will be at least a second faster than a driver could react, so in that respect the problem is not so much a technical one as a question of liability and public acceptance, especially in fatal collisions. So, when you say that slower speeds reduce the cost of a fuck up, you have to include serious injury and death as potential costs, and these are far more likely at high speeds than at low speeds. That's an enormous difference.

I would also note that a human who practices good, defensive driving techniques is constantly looking well past the vehicle ahead, noting the behavior of vehicles in all lanes of traffic, including parallel lanes, intersecting roads and driveways, and using sophisticated predictive heuristics to evaluate risks and react much sooner to developments than just sensing the speed changes of the vehicle immediately in front. I'm not sure how well current self-driving cars are able to model these techniques.

If the several companies experimenting with this technology have good answers to these problems, I would be happy to hear it, since those companies are currently pushing hard at the political end of things to allow this technology much sooner than later. If it's going to happen anyway, I want it to be as safe as possible.

etaeoe, can you talk more about your work? I'd be curious to hear from someone actually working in the field as to what the real pitfalls are.

xp the serious injury and death liability question is definitely an interesting one. I wonder what kind of lifetime the self-driving data will have. I suppose they will rely heavily on cameras for accident liability stuff?

I'm not sure, but I suspect that the self-driving cars will possess some kind of radar. That alone should give the car potentially better cross-lane and up-ahead awareness than a human. You can then add communication with other self-driving cars, and data pulled from the sky. So I do think you're underestimating the possibilities if you assume a self-driving car is only "sensing the speed changes of the vehicle immediately in front."

I think you are correct that there are difficult AI problems, such as classifying another driver on the road as dangerous, which a human can possibly do better, though.

etaeoe, can you talk more about your work? I'd be curious to hear from someone actually working in the field as to what the real pitfalls are.

I’m a member of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. I work on computer vision problems. My recent work uses convolutional neural networks to solve object recognition problems in biology, e.g. “is this cancer?”

I took a poll at our group meeting last week about the feasibility of autonomous vehicles and few believed it’s possible with existing (computational and statistical) theory or (software engineering) methods. However, one optimistic member of our group is leaving to work for Mercedes-Benz on this problem (they use CNNs too). So, we’ll see!

I see three major problems:

* Garbage in, garbage out—sensors and cameras suck! I can’t reliably segment (i.e. isolate or extract) cells (i.e. uniform blobs) from static backgrounds from images that were captured with the world’s most sophisticated microscopes. We need better acquisition for more reliable predictions.

* While learning methods can reliably solve common object recognition problems, they can’t solve “scene understanding” problems, e.g. a model may predict an image includes a “cowboy” and a “horse” but it cannot understand the relationship between the two (e.g. “roping a steer”). This is the major open problem in computer vision and I think it’ll be fundamental to autonomous vehicles (and other difficult machine vision problems).

* Software is too hard to write. Autonomous vehicles will likely require complicated parallel programs that must be bug free. Compilers (and static analysis) need to advance.

I should add that I think these problems (and others) are solvable. It’ll just take some time! I should also add that I’m usually wrong when trying to predict this stuff! :P

I'm not sure, but I suspect that the self-driving cars will possess some kind of radar. That alone should give the car potentially better cross-lane and up-ahead awareness than a human. You can then add communication with other self-driving cars, and data pulled from the sky. So I do think you're underestimating the possibilities if you assume a self-driving car is only "sensing the speed changes of the vehicle immediately in front."

I’ve been told that current self-driving programs rely mostly on non-camera sensors (e.g. GPS, Lidar, Radar, etc.). I think the technique is:

• follow a GPS route; and

• don’t bump into stuff

I wonder if you ever ran into my ex-roommate's work, he did video image recognition in colonoscopy footage to attempt cancer detection. Worked with the Mayo Clinic, iirc

world's most sophisticated microscopes = normal imaging or something like oct?

xp innerestin'!
your notes about the lack of sophistication of cameras and sensors brings to mind the old anti-atheist "miracle of the human eye" saw; i assume there must be some research into a completely reimagined method of acquiring imagery based on liquid or gel lenses?

http://www.nature.com/news/octopus-genome-holds-clues-to-uncanny-intelligence-1.18177

gimme an octopus-style neural network

eh, it will just run away to the ocean the first chance it gets

I see you have read about Inky's adventures, too

http://i.imgur.com/qTQOWYC.png

https://www.captionbot.ai/

looooooooool

i think AI has arrived

Awesome

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CgRG4gqXEAEQlB8.jpg

that's clearly the guy from interpol

ccaaaaaeeeeeekkkk

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/04/19/us/politics/ap-us-aviation-bill-senate.html

re: the amazon delivery drones, the senate passed a bill

WASHINGTON — The Senate approved a bipartisan aviation policy bill Tuesday that would boost airport security, extend new protections to airline passengers and help speed the introduction of package-delivery drones.

...The bill also would remove obstacles to commercial use of drones while enhancing privacy and safety protections. It requires that within two years the FAA authorize package deliveries by drones. The agency would create a small drone "air carrier certificate" for operators of delivery drone fleets, similar to the safety certificates granted to commercial airlines. The rules are needed for Amazon and other companies to deploy fleets of delivery drones.

Another provision would establish criminal penalties for the reckless use of drones, aimed at penalizing operators who fly drones near airports without prior approval. Another provision requiring the TSA to restore passenger screening at small airports where airline service has been reduced would force the agency "to reallocate staff and equipment from higher-risk, higher-need facilities," the White House said in a statement.

The White House criticized the bill's delivery-drone language as "overly prescriptive" and said it would disrupt the agency's ongoing efforts to write safety regulations for commercial drone flights.

I don't get the point of drone delivery. It seems like they are looking for a more efficient way for people to lose their packages.

i dunno, UPS is doing a good job of making it look good. two days ago they tried to deliver a wedding dress to our apartment, but we missed them by 15 minutes. so instead they left a message saying they'd drop off the package to a random cell phone store about a mile away (?!). the next day we went there at noon, but the store was closed (because it's a shitty random cell phone store). we went again later in the day, but the package wasn't there. the UPS tracking said that the package was en route to the auxiliary dropoff point (?). today the tracker said that it had been delivered - to the shitty random cell phone store. which may or may not be open.

so i don't know, i get the appeal of a little flying thing landing at your front door. it's all a moot point for me, though, because from what i've seen it seems tailor made for the suburban lifestyle - big grassy front yards and lots of space. i can't see a tiny drone landing next to a city apartment anytime soon.

Well see, UPS is showing you a very inefficient way of losing a package. The Amazon model loads the package into a drone, it flies away, and then *poof* package gone.

but imagine the poignant moment as you run outside and catch just a faint distant image of the drone flying into the sunset, with your errant package dangling precariously by one little claw

I have a really big tree in my yard. I keep wondering if someday in the future, I will see some amazon drones in it

drone delivery strikes me like VR and not-strictly-necessary bionic augmentation: thanks for the offer, I'll check back in 20 years once you've worked all the kinks out

kinky drones, now we're talking

but imagine the poignant moment as you run outside and catch just a faint distant image of the drone flying into the sunset, with your errant package dangling precariously by one little claw

i guess late stage capitalism does have a little romance to it.

* Software is too hard to write. Autonomous vehicles will likely require complicated parallel programs that must be bug free. Compilers (and static analysis) need to advance.

+ A BILLION

make em write it all in ada

https://www.rust-lang.org/

I'm picturing y'all chasing down your Amazon and UPS drones like

http://www.jeditemplearchives.com/galleries/2014/Review_ObiWanKenobiCoruscantChaseSWS/Review_ObiWanKenobiCoruscantChaseSWS_still.jpg

I have had excellent UPS service and every time I see complaints I cross my fingers and hope I'm not some weird outlier who is going to wake up some day to realize they started delivering my packages to the dump

In an unusual alliance between a traditional automaker and a technology company, Ford Motor and Google on Wednesday joined to lead a coalition of companies that advocate federal approval of driverless cars in the near future.

...At Wednesday’s hearing at Stanford University in California, the nation’s top auto safety regulator, Mark Rosekind, said the federal government was hopeful that driverless technology could help reduce the annual death toll from traffic accidents. In 2014, the last year for which data was available, 32,675 people died in auto accidents.

Mr. Rosekind said that more than 90 percent of vehicle accidents every year were the result of decisions made by drivers at the wheel — and self-driving technology had the potential to prevent at least some of those accidents.

“We are focused on promoting safety innovation that can do the most to save lives,” he said.

Automakers are already putting some self-driving features, like automatic braking and steering, in current models. But the coalition led by Ford and Google is urging swift passage of regulations that allow for totally autonomous vehicles.

In addition to Ford and Google, the coalition includes the Swedish carmaker Volvo and the ride-sharing firms Lyft and Uber. The spokesman for the group is David Strickland, a predecessor of Mr. Rosekind’s as the head of the safety agency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/business/ford-and-google-team-up-tosupport-driverless-cars.html

Ban human-driven cars by 2025 imo

http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/28/movidius-fathom-neural-compute-stick/

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a82/bobbysixer/aicap_zpsu0je6wmp.jpg

My last attempt to use that image recognition site ^ said "I'm not sure, but I think it's a picture." Well, yes, I suppose it would be.

any thoughts on this guy? pretty interesting stuff

http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-george-hotz-self-driving-car/

So he started fitting out the car last November and hoped to have a world class vehicle ready by May? If he's driving for ten hours a day every day that's less than 2000 hours of training. No thanks.

Update: by Feb he'd managed 100 hours (!) of training, and he hopes to release by the end of the year. Fingers crossed eh George!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aarontilley/2016/03/08/george-hotz-comma-ai/#32fe0499493b

This article was fascinating, and perhaps suggests some ways forward for AI modeling...

Tesla driver killed in crash while using 'Autopilot' self-driving feature

Tesla driver killed in crash while using 'Autopilot' self-driving feature

I wrote about this on Twitter. Background subtraction (i.e. image segmentation) was blamed. This is exactly the problem I outlined above.

A lot of people are claiming that even current self-driving cars are "safer" than human-driven cars, but this seems to me based on the faulty comparison of self-driving to the "average" driver. Most auto-fatalities involve either alcohol, a lack of a seatbelt, or a combination of the two. It should thus not be very reassuring to a sober, seatbelt-wearing person that the self-driving car has a lower fatality rate than humans.

Wait until the first big lawsuit where an injured party (or their estate) sues the manufacturer of a self-driving car for damages due to 'negligence' or 'reckless disregard' and we'll know a lot more about the future of the autonomous vehicle industry.

I'm sorry guys it is a farce, I was the car "self-driver". The front camera had extra glare and I've acquired this tolerance for stimulants that is making them ineffective and when I saw that shiny surface my first thought was that we're having that glare issue again (logged in jira so many times) but maybe I just thought of all those cool movie scenes where a cool little tesla-like car skids under a semi. Yikes. Don't email my boss. Let me self-drive for you in peace

Artificial Intelligence still has some way to go

http://arstechnica.co.uk/the-multiverse/2016/06/sunspring-movie-watch-written-by-ai-details-interview/

It says something that the pop song written by that program was vapid, but almost passable, while the script, where humans must talk to one another and act like humans, sounds barely coherent.

https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/misfortune

but it's so much more fun to paint this as a robocop boardroom demo and draw snide conclusions about how AI still has a long way to go

http://yaroslav.ganin.net/static/deepwarp/

lol, a literal RMDE program

The first program that can roll its eyes at how bad it is.

paging gr8080

http://i.giphy.com/3o6ZsSi98Ugr8mUk9y.gif

This work seems to be aimed pretty directly at creating photo-realistic-animation software. This is the sort of 'artificial intelligence' that has a viable path to its goal, but it is hardly the 'strong ai' that gets all the think-pieces.